The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

1. The sentence of the lower court against the accused (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. According to Article 63(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, if the dwelling, office, or present address of the defendant is unknown, prior to the determination of the above grounds for appeal, service by public notice may be made. Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and Articles 18 and 19 of the Special Rule on Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings do not apply to death penalty, imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for a long term exceeding ten years in the trial of the first instance, if the location of the defendant was requested for investigation, issuance of arrest warrant, request for correction of the address of the prosecutor, or other necessary measures in order to confirm the location of the defendant, the service by public notice for the defendant is not confirmed within six months after receipt of the report.

Therefore, if the defendant's dwelling, office or present address appears on the record, the service shall be made in the way of the service, and the service by public notice shall be made immediately without taking such measures, without taking such measures, in violation of Article 63 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 23 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, it is not permitted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do3892 Decided July 12, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 201Do1094 Decided May 13, 201, etc.). According to the records of this case, the Defendant, at the time of investigation by the police, stated his/her place of residence as “the second floor company of HA in the Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon” (the 19th page and 21th page of the evidence record), can be recognized. As such, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s location was not confirmed without taking such measures, even though the Defendant should have tried to release the service to the above address prior to the decision of service by public notice.